Two fundamental assumptions underpin the current research. Firstly, every learning interaction is inherently a literate interaction. This signifies that students are expected to proficiently and flexibly navigate various modes, both spoken and written, in order to convey thoughts and emotions, formulate ideas and opinions, defend arguments, present information clearly and concisely, and effectively engage in quality communication tailored to specific goals, circumstances, and target audiences (Berman & Ravid, 2008; Tolcinski, 2022).

The second assumption - every learning interaction encompasses processes related to Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and Executive functions. SRL is essential in the learning process of students, as it enables them to manage and oversee their entire learning process (Jansen et al., 2019; Lichtinger & Kaplan, 2011; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 2023). The self-regulation process consists of three phases: the preparatory phase, where students plan before learning; the performance phase, where students employ cognitive strategies to successfully complete tasks; and the appraisal phase, where students reflect on their learning, evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies, and consider adjustments for future study sessions (Jansen et al., 2019; Pintrich, 2000; Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Zimmerman et al., 2023). These processes also encompass executive functions, which are a set of higher-order cognitive processes necessary for directing goal-oriented behaviors and tasks that are not carried out automatically (Spencer, 2020). Executive functions are particularly important in performing complex tasks like reading comprehension and writing (Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002). Skilled readers, for instance, must exercise control over their reading process, ensuring comprehension and employing diverse strategies (Landi,2012). Written expression also necessitates organization, planning, control, and the ability to analyze task requirements, make decisions, and allocate attention (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Kaplan et al., 2009).

These fundamental assumptions are the basis for building the student's literacy resilience. In this study, resilience is examined from both a linguistic literacy and a metacognitive perspective. It focuses on the learners' ability to navigate educational tasks that demand both literacy skills and self-regulated learning (SRL). These skills collectively form the foundation for cultivating literacy resilience. When a student approaches a literacy task while applying meta-strategic knowledge, they will be able to unlock their literacy resilience and autonomously manage such challenges without requiring the intervention of a teacher. This approach is not contingent upon previous failures but is seamlessly integrated into the standard learning routine.

Hence, it is crucial to comprehend the concept of literacy resilience, the methods for constructing and nurturing it, and the implications of fostering literacy resilience on teachers' lesson planning, classroom discourse, and students' approaches to their assignments.

This study establishes a theoretical connection between linguistic literacy, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) skills, Executive function and meta-strategic knowledge. In this article, a comprehensive definition of literacy resilience, will be presented. Additionally, an analysis will be presented to evaluate teachers' perceptions of their students' levels of literacy resilience.

The term "literacy resilience"  (LR) is based on a theoretical connection between linguistic literacy, meta-strategic knowledge and self-regulated learning (SRL) skills. A combined definition of resilience is the ability to persevere in the face of challenges and cope with difficult situations through a set of processes that allow for better results despite the presence of significant threats / difficulties Linguistic literacy skills anchored in SRL are the cornerstones of the learner's literacy resilience (Amir & Heaysman, 2022).

383 participants - teachers who chose to attend a lecture or a PD (Professional Development) course about literacy that was provided by the Ministry of Education. The teachers filled out a questionnaire that was developed specifically for this study. The questionnaire consists of Likert scale questions with the following ratings: 1 (neither/neither), 2 (to a small degree/infrequently), 3 (to a large degree/frequently), and 4 (to an extremely great degree/always). Each question was based on one of the aforementioned facets of the definition of literacy resilience. The Cronbach's α for internal reliability test confirmed high reliability  = 0.938. Data Analysis In order to answer the two research questions, first, a descriptive statistical analyses was conducted for each section of the questionnaire, including the mean, standard deviation, and range (minimum and maximum). Second, for each of the indices, three level-based categories were established: low, medium, and high. In the initial phase, the mean of each participant's statements for each index was determined. In the second step, the averages in each index into three categories were sorted: low, medium, and high. The low level included averages between 1 and 1.99, medium between 2 and 2.99, and high between 3 and 4. Thirdly, the frequency of each category was determined (low, medium, and high). Lastly, using ANOVA, the prevalence between age groups was compared. 1. The literacy resilience level of students: (a) To what extent do teachers perceive their students as literately resilient? (b) Will there be differences between the perception of teachers in different education levels (elementary, middle, and high school) regarding their students' literacy resilience? (c) Will there be differences between teachers from different disciplines in their perception of their students' literacy resilience? 2. Will there be a connection between the degree of importance attributed to literacy resilience by teachers and their perception of the level of literacy resilience of their students?

In examining the first research question pertaining to the level of literacy resilience of the students, it was discovered that the vast majority of teachers, regardless of education level or discipline, perceive the level of literacy resilience of the students to be low. According to the teachers, students require a great deal of assistance when completing assignments, as they have difficulty identifying their difficulties in a focused manner, are unfamiliar with suitable coping strategies for tasks requiring linguistic literacy skills. This finding has implications for both the pedagogical-didactic and professional development aspects of teacher education. They present teachers with significant challenges of theoretical and practical knowledge as well as beliefs (Dignath & Buttner, 2018; Lawson et al., 2019). Therefore, it is essential to have professional development for teachers, based on aspects of literacy resilience, which include the development of linguistic literacy skills and SRL. In examining the second research question - Examining the relationship between the variables revealed no correlation between the importance teachers place on literacy resilience and the perceived level of literacy resilience of students. they still perceive the students' level of literacy resilience as low. Why is it crucial to foster literacy resilience? Independent learner development is the pinnacle of education and a global trend (OECD, 2021). Literacy resilience enables students to become independent learners. A learner with literacy resilience will be able to navigate the technology-rich 21st century, manage his learning, plan a complete learning process from beginning to end, know how to ask questions, employ appropriate strategies, and monitor the process. It is an active process in which learners act as their own learning agents and are conscious of the process: they plan and manage the learning, observe their actions, evaluate their situation, and direct their actions accordingly.

Amir. A, Heaysman, O. (2022). Literacy Resilience – how do teachers perceive it? Oryanut vesafa. 9, 81-96. (In Hebrew). Jansen, R. S., Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., & Kester, L. (2019). Self-regulated learning partially mediates the effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100292.‏ Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self-regulation in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 51.‏ Landi, N. (2012). Learning to read words: Understanding the relationship between reading ability, lexical quality, and reading context. In Reading-From words to multiple texts (pp. 17-33). Routledge.‏ Lichtinger, E., & Kaplan, A. (2011). Purpose of engagement in academic self-regulation. SRL, (126).‏ Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Academic Press.‏ Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 419-448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000902005111 Zimmerman, B. J., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein, C. E. (2023). Self-regulating academic study time: A strategy approach. In Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 181-199). Routledge.